n
xl
see
-
We also know that armed raiders from across the border come in and threaten life and property in British territory (I saw 12 of these scallywags up before the Magistrates Court in the New Territories when I was there one morning last March as desperate looking a band of thugs as anyone could want to
who had been caught overnight by the local Police (on information received) armed and planning an armed hold-up), and the Police must clearly, on occasions, be able to shoot fast and first - if useful lives are not to be sacrificed. With further Communist successes in China this kind of thing may be expected to grow, and it may even occur within the City of Hong Kong itself.
If the powers were considered unreasonable the Ordinance would, I should have thought, beenstrongly challenged in the Legislature. There is no indication of any such challenge; in fact the Ordinance was passed with only one amendment. I don't understand the significance in the variation in wording to which Mr. Wallace calls attention at "X" in his minute above, but I don't feel that it is of any material importance.
In view of the issue which has been raised, however, I send the matter on. For my part, I should be disposed to "G.3" without comment.
15.12.1948.
Hong Kong must of course be allowed to take whatever powers within reason they can show to be necessary; but is this use of firearms really necessary?
Consider how it would apply in practice.
Section 9.
I do not see how you can secure compliance with a curfew order by shooting anyone, unless you happen to see
in order to him coming out of his front door, and kill hime. prevent his stepping into the street. It may that what they really mean, is that they need power to shoot suspicious
In certain characters who cannot otherwise be apprehended. circumstances that may be justifiable, but that is not what they have said.
Section 10.
Here the power is more sensible.
A policeman or a
member of the forces could be authorised to shoot anyone going in or out of a declared place, in order to prevent his proceeding, but is not that going rather far?
Section 11.
This is the worst case of all in my opinion. Surely it can never be really necessary to enforce evacuation by the use of firearms.
Clause 12.
This perhaps is the case in which the power is most easily justified.
The difference between Section 10 and the others is vital.
Under Sections 9, 11 and 12 the Court can itself say whether in the circumstances, the use of firearms is
necessary.
/Under